Have something to say?

Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?

Comment of the Day - November 8, 2005 - Microsoft's D.C. legal firm had lawyers working with UNISYS

Stephe writes: The entire case was just wrong. The protesting companies made claims that were simply incorrect. That's why they lost. The reporting was sensational and wrong. That's why I wrote the article for USENIX ;login: once I was out from under the embargo of the appeals time frame. (I was the USENIX representative to the IEEE POSIX working groups, as Shane and Jeff both were before me.

[Ed: Interesting to get a perspective from the author of the article ten years after he testified at the hearing. If you have a difficult time getting to Stephe's article in the archives, need we say more?]

Heinz was called in as a POSIX expert by the lawyers representing one
of the protesting companies. (TiSoft maybe?) Dr. Peter Salus was also
part of the debate for the other side ([HYPERLINK@www.groklaw.net]).
So was Shane McCarron (who was Secretary of the IEEE POSIX Sponsor
Executive Committee at the time). So was Dr. Jeff Haemer ([HYPERLINK@goyishekop.blogspot.com]).

I was the testifying POSIX expert on the Unisys side. Yes, Microsoft's
D.C. legal firm had lawyers working with UNISYS external counsel
(Wiley, Rein and Fielding). I was hired by W,R & F.

Sun was giving lawyers to one of the protesters on the other side,
because it was bidding Sun servers. The other protesting company was
bidding Mac as a client with SCO servers. (This was before the Mac was
a creation of UNIX beauty and needed some funny emulator on it, and SCO
was merely a cheap UNIX on Intel and hadn't been acquired by the Canopy
Group as a litigation tool against IBM.)

The entire case was just wrong. The protesting companies made claims
that were simply incorrect. That's why they lost. The reporting was
sensational and wrong. That's why I wrote the article for USENIX
;login: once I was out from under the embargo of the appeals time
frame. (I was the USENIX representative to the IEEE POSIX working
groups, as Shane and Jeff both were before me.)